single photos Defying time

Well Anne, it's true that my critique is informed by my preferences. But it would be necessary to add that my preferences and my personal taste have been formed by decades of photographing, years of viewing other photos and of discussions with like-minded fellow photographers.

All in all I don't have the feeling that the critics here are dismissive. It's just a bit of a direct approach, but I do not see a real issue there.

In the end, any critique is some sort of a personal aggression, isn't it? But posting for critique opens exposes to that.

Cheers,

L.

Anne, thanks for your answer.

I think you highlight, with the formulation above, a central question in all critique forums. The real tricky question is that we do have around here on PN people that in some cases are highly trained and educated with a long professional carreer behind them in photograpy or even better in arts in general, who provide critique that clearly goes beyond their very personal "taste" as concerns: what is good, what is bad what can be improved and what can be done differently. Over-saturation is indeed a too easy means of being seen and noticed for many not to fall in the trap of overusing it. Fading everything is the same type of easy expression for trying to indicate something more profound. In both cases, I think we should all be very careful not to fall in the same trap as viewers.

I can assure you, that I, being a modest passionate amateur when it comes to arts and photography, do not consider myself among those few, but just try to do my best - most of the time! Luca is right that any critique can be hard to receive, but I don't see any other way of expressing how things can be improved.

I can't believe people buy into these fake images and I can't believe photo.net sells out.

I too fall in Stephen's camp of process=reality and is the more important. That probably comes from the fact I shot film all my life with no darkroom manipulation to my credit. However, I understand the "result" argument point of view as equally important to many, maybe more important. So I've also been perplexed as to how to resolve this issue until I looked at it from the photographer's standpoint rather than the viewer's standpoint.

I'll get nowhere trying to prove to other viewers that my way of thinking is "best". Rather I have to look at the way I photograph based on my internal compass. It's the old "to thine own self be true" concept If I believe that a photograph must represent reality as close as possible, then that's it. I must create final products that closely represents reality even if the final result do not appear as good as someone else who may have Photoshopped the results to "pop" better. I have to let it go knowing that I fulfilled my standard, my internal compass, and be satisfied that I followed what my God asked me to do.

Otherwise I could become like the jazz musician who looking for more adulation and listeners turns my music to "pop" to garner more acclaim. No, that won't work. I have to stick with jazz because that's me and live with the fact that my listeners might be smaller in number but my music is mine and copying someone else won't let me sleep soundly when I put my head on my pillow at night.

The image is clearly photoshopped (pay attention to the clouds, there are exact duplicates).  However,  that is not to say that it isn't a wonderful piece of art!! 

Mastering photoshop enables one to create art that otherwise cannot be captured through a lense.  As long as the work isn't passed off as an actual photograph, I applaud & encourage works like this!

I love the color in this picture, very nice

I like the colors and how the orange contrasts the sky. I also like the way that some of the archways are lit up and some are dark, it makes you move around the picture, the leading lines of the foreground pull you back in once you are done looking at the beautiful sky.

fantastic!!!